Posts by Kracklite
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
quite specific evidence
What part of "inadmissible" don't you understand - or do you not care?
-
I'm sure it does. That doesn't necessarily make it rape though
Ever heard of "sexual violation"? It's classified as a crime. More than just "inappropriate"
-
Bah, four per gun out of, what, 17?
It's late and it's been too much of Scotland's most famous export - and I don't mean golf.
-
I was making an insinuation? Sorry, I must have missed it. I just saw you bringing out the "you're with us or against us" thing and went "hey, I said just that to somebody else recently..."
And that's just what you were doing. Is it all just point scoring is it?
You didn't answer tyhe cherry picking charge I see.
But I don't see anybody making them here
A S was quick to do exactly that.
bollocks
Ah, charming and eloquent logical argument I see.
FWIW, Asher's argument is intemperate and "us verus them" - "with us or against us" if you like, but he/she/it does state that one has a legal and constitutional right to remain silent and that is the core of their argument. Should that be taken as a sign of degeneracy?
That's not to say that people can't raise genuine concerns about civil liberties surrounding the recent arrests
You forgot the 'but" - and everything before the "but" is bullshit. Oh hang on, there was a "but"... Civil liberties issues are not incidential objections - they are utterly crucial.
Thatcher...Pinochet...There are certainly circumstances where refusal to disavow somebody's actions does reflect on your own character and fitness
Arbitrary association to avoid the obvious Godwining. Yes, there are plenty of examples of changing the subject in order to score cheap but irrelevant points.
eople being arrested on the basis of quite specific evidence
Some may have been, others haven't. The charges to everyone -all sixteen are related to what's on the warrants and those are firearms charges. If I do some quick maths, that comes to less than five people per gun recovered and over 2.5 million dollars per gun - it must mean some pretty heavy firepower - perhaps ex-Soviet artillery? Evidence, you say - and where is the trial and the cross-examination by defence counsel? All we have seen are accusations.
Just trivbial, incidental civil liberties issues, worthy of derision, eh?
And Sara:
I'd far rather be watching one of the movies you suggested. Thank you!
Don't, they're depressing. Watch The Sound of Music or something.
-
That seems much more like what you're objecting to than the examples you're citing, no?
And that's just a cherry picking and bloody snide. Care to make any other insinuations?
I repeat, I should not be required in a democratic society to disavow any sympathies with anyone to prove my good character and fitness.
-
No really, I've been there and made one, but is there something I am not doing AT gravatar (or here) that means its not coming up.
I think that you have to log off first and then log on again.
-
"Clown" who, at 5'2" and 45 kg
Funnily enough, I know one too (and have done for several years), a more recent case. Not a broken collarbone, but severe bruising and an false assault charge to boot (literally, or it might have been a fist, or a baton) - thrown out by the judge in a matter of minutes. It was a classic case of assaulting an officer by throwing herself on his boot/fist/baton.
No, I will NOT give her name, nor will I demand a public pledge of loyalty to the state from her because her associates are accused of terroism. Really, what the hell are people thinking if they demand loyalty pledges?
The Police are agents of the state. They have lots and lots of POWER. They are required to abide by certain professional and ethical standards - like clergy, therapists, judges etc etc. They are, therefore, supposed to be subject to higher levels of scrutiny than members of the public.
Habeas corpus - tho' our constitution is unwritten, that principle applies no less. We grant certain people power to restrict our liberty under certain circumstances precisely so that we don't have lynch mobs; that can not be unconditional, ever.
-
I have yet to see responses from the people he's posed them to that weren't big fat circumlocutions or just ignoring them.
Those accused and their associates, alas, have to keep their traps shut because what they say can prejudice their trials. That's a nontrivial point to them. Unlike the Dompost, the consequences for them are real and substantial considering their resources.
Frankly, that line recalls "You're with us or against us" far too well.
-
Ron Moore['s] dialogue is so much better.
You are sooo right there. Bob Dylan's isn't bad either (you'll see what I mean). Interestingly, the brilliant "Butterfingers!" was improv.
Now if it was Roslin v Baltar, I'd be interested.
-
And then there's the Stanford Prison Experiment...
Juvenal really had a point.
Those in power, whether they are right or wrong, must be open to scrutiny, and this should be a regular, even constitutional process. The tendency to dehumanise the supposed "other" so that 12-year-olds have guns pointed at their heads is sadly a human reflex and it's not a bleeding-heart liberal response to demand checks and balances - it's simply based on a (sorrowing) awareness of human nature.